Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the Plaintiff’s attorney within twenty (20) days after service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this
summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded in the complaint.
By:
Douglas H. Wigdor
Kenneth D. Walsh
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10003
Tel: (212) 257-6800
Fax: (212) 257-6845
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
kwalsh@wigdorlaw.com
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 1 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
Plaintiff Warner Wolf (“Plaintiff”) hereby alleges against Defendants Don Imus, Chad
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiff Warner Wolf enjoyed a long, storied career as a legend in the sports
broadcasting world, having coined such iconic phrases as “Let’s go to the videotape.” However,
not even a broadcasting legend like Mr. Wolf was safe from the well-documented discriminatory
behavior of the infamous radio personality Don Imus. To the contrary, Defendant Imus routinely
made inappropriate comments about Plaintiff’s age, including stating that it was “time to put
[Mr. Wolf] out to pasture” and “shoot him with an elephant dart gun.”
2. Indeed, despite Mr. Wolf’s years of loyal service and unparalleled broadcasting
caliber, Defendants’ discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiff came to a head on October 31,
2016, when Defendants unlawfully terminated Mr. Wolf’s employment based upon his age,
replacing him with a sportscaster decades his junior. Adding insult to injury, after terminating
Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants and non-party Cumulus Media, Inc. refused to honor a
severance clause in Plaintiff’s employment agreement that provided for 26 weeks of severance
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to1 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 2 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
3. As the “videotape” in this case will unquestionably show, Defendants have failed
to adhere to New York’s anti-discrimination laws, and have unlawfully discriminated against Mr.
Wolf based upon his age. So, in the words of Plaintiff, let’s go to the videotape.
4. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to New York Civil Practice
5. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to CPLR § 503 as at least one Defendant
resides in New York County and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims
PARTIES
non-party Cumulus Media, Inc (“Cumulus”). Plaintiff currently resides in Naples, Florida. At
all relevant times, Mr. Wolf fell within the definition of a “person” and/or “employee” under all
7. Defendant Imus is an infamous radio broadcaster and the host of the radio show
Imus in the Morning (“Imus in the Morning” or the “Show”), which, at all relevant times aired
on WABC Radio (“WABC”) from New York, New York. Upon information and belief,
Defendant Imus currently resides in Brenham, Texas. At all relevant times, Defendant Imus was
8. Defendant Lopez is a Vice President and Market Manager for Cumulus and
General Manager for WABC. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lopez currently resides in
New York, New York. At all relevant times, Defendant Lopez was Plaintiff’s employer within
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to2 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 3 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
Cumulus. Upon information and belief, Defendant McVay currently resides in Decatur, Georgia.
At all relevant times, Defendant McVay was Plaintiff’s employer within the meaning of all
applicable statutes.
10. Defendant Schwalb is WABC’s Program Director. Upon information and belief,
Defendant Schwalb is a resident of Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. At all relevant times,
Defendant Schwalb was Plaintiff’s employer within the meaning of all applicable statutes.
described herein was with Cumulus. Although Cumulus was also Plaintiff’s employer within the
meaning of all applicable statutes, as Cumulus filed for Chapter 11 reorganization on November
29, 2017, it is not named as a party in this action pursuant to the automatic stay imposed by 11
U.S.C. § 362.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
services for Imus in the Morning, frequently appearing on the Show as a sports contributor.
13. Although the Show was briefly cancelled in April 2007 following a well-
publicized controversy wherein Imus referred to players on the Rutgers University women’s
basketball team as “nappy-headed hos,” in approximately December 2007, Imus in the Morning
14. Shortly after the Show’s return to the air on WABC, Mr. Wolf re-joined Imus in
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to3 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 4 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
15. As had been the case for the entirety of Mr. Wolf’s broadcasting career, whenever
he appeared on Imus in the Morning, he was captivating, well received and a highly respected
voice in the sports world. Furthermore, over the course of a nearly 20-year period working with
Imus, from approximately 1996 through 2016, Mr. Wolf never missed a show other than for
scheduled vacations.
16. Nevertheless, upon information and belief, Imus in the Morning was responsible
for approximately one-third of WABC’s entire revenue, and, as a result, Imus was routinely left
to call the shots, with the other Defendants authorizing and assisting in any and all of his
17. When Plaintiff first rejoined Imus in the Morning in approximately December
2007, he provided his services for the Show from WABC’s studios in New York, New York.
providing his services to the Show from his home in Naples, Florida, and not from WABC’s
19. Defendants Imus and Lopez gave Mr. Wolf permission to relocate and continue
providing his services to the Show from his home in Naples, Florida.
20. When Mr. Wolf first relocated to Florida, his employment agreement (the
Employment Agreement further provided that, in the event Defendants terminated Mr. Wolf
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to4 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 5 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
22. In order to remain a part of the WABC team and continue providing his services
for Imus in the Morning from Florida, Mr. Wolf agreed to a significant reduction in his salary,
23. In an October 17, 2016 email, Schwalb confirmed the terms of Mr. Wolf’s new
employment agreement, including that Plaintiff’s new salary would be $80,000.00, effective
January 1, 2017. Schwalb’s October 17, 2016 email further stated, “[w]e will retain the 26
week ‘current salary’ severance language from section 3 of your current agreement.”
24. Plaintiff responded to Schwalb’s October 17, 2016 email the same day, simply
stating, “Confirmed.”
26. Although Plaintiff and Schwalb briefly discussed the location from which Mr.
Wolf would provide his services during the course of negotiating Plaintiff’s new employment
agreement, it was neither contemplated nor expected – much less required – that Mr. Wolf
27. Furthermore, neither Schwalb’s October 17, 2016 offer nor his October 18, 2016
confirmation of Mr. Wolf’s acceptance made any reference to Mr. Wolf providing his services
28. Before Plaintiff’s new employment agreement went into effect, Defendants
terminated Mr. Wolf’s employment and replaced him with Sid Rosenberg, a sportscaster decades
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to5 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 6 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
29. On October 31, 2016 – less than two weeks after Mr. Wolf confirmed the terms of
his new employment agreement with Schwalb – Imus sent Mr. Wolf an email stating that Imus
“did not think [Mr. Wolf] doing the sports from Florida was working.” Imus wrote, “You asked
me if I was ok with you doing sports from Florida. I said I was. We tried it. It sucks.” Imus
concluded his October 31, 2016 email stating, “If you’re in the studio in New York . . . it’s
30. At the time of his termination, Mr. Wolf was 78 years old.
31. To the shock of Mr. Wolf’s co-workers and WABC listeners, Mr. Wolf
32. However, Defendants’ proffered basis for terminating Mr. Wolf was blatantly
pretextual, as Imus acknowledged in his October 31, 2016 email that he had previously approved
Mr. Wolf working from Florida, and Mr. Imus himself had provided his services for the Show
from his home in Texas. To that end, during the recent renegotiation of Mr. Wolf’s employment
agreement, Defendants never stated that Mr. Wolf providing his services for the Show from
Florida was problematic, and there was no requirement that he return to New York in order to
33. Furthermore, the quality of equipment that Mr. Wolf used in Florida made it
nearly impossible to tell that he was not located in New York, such that Imus routinely asked
whether Mr. Wolf was located in Florida or New York. Indeed, after Defendants terminated Mr.
Wolf’s employment, on December 26, 2017, Mr. Wolf did a sports broadcast from his home in
Naples, Florida for WOR radio – a station located in New York, New York – with perfect sound
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to6 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 7 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
34. Finally, rather than actually offering Mr. Wolf the opportunity to provide his
services from New York – a situation that Imus himself described as “terrific” – Defendants
35. In reality, Defendants discriminatorily terminated Mr. Wolf based upon his age.
Imus once commented that it was “time to put [Mr. Wolf] out to pasture” and “shoot him with an
37. Furthermore, Defendants replaced Mr. Wolf, who was 78 years old at the time of
his termination, with Sid Rosenberg, a sportscaster decades Mr. Wolf’s junior who had
previously been fired from the Show for making crude remarks about a female celebrity’s breast
cancer diagnosis.
38. Upon information and belief, all Defendants were aware of Defendant Imus’s
39. Furthermore, all Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was being replaced with
40. On November 4, 2016 – the same day that Plaintiff announced his termination
from Imus in the Morning – the New York Daily News published an article titled, “Sportscaster
Warner Wolf booted from ‘Imus in the Morning’ show” (the “Article”). The Article states that,
when asked why he was leaving the Show, Plaintiff responded, “You’d have to ask Imus that
question.”
41. The following day, November 5, 2016, Imus sent Plaintiff an email accusing him
of lying in the Article, and ominously threatened Mr. Wolf by stating, “don’t go to war with me.”
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to7 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 8 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
Mr. Wolf contacted Defendant McVay to remind him of the Company’s obligation to pay him
severance pursuant to the Employment Agreement and to inquire whether McVay could assist in
procuring another role for Plaintiff, either at WABC or another Cumulus-owned station.
Although McVay told Mr. Wolf he would “see what he can do” with respect to finding Plaintiff
another role, upon information and belief, Imus ensured that Plaintiff would not be re-hired by
any Cumulus station, and McVay failed to take any further action to remedy Defendants’
discriminatory conduct. Indeed, when McVay ultimately contacted Mr. Wolf over a year later, it
was only to inform Plaintiff that McVay had heard a reference to Mr. Wolf on the popular
43. Adding insult to injury, despite Defendants’ clearly discriminatory and arbitrary
termination of Mr. Wolf’s employment, Cumulus refused to pay him the severance to which he
is entitled to receive pursuant to the terms of his Employment Agreement. To that end, although
Plaintiff reminded Schwalb in a November 2, 2016 email that he was entitled to receive 26
weeks of severance pay at his then-current salary of $195,000.00, Defendants’ actions resulted in
Cumulus breaching its severance payment obligations arising under the Employment Agreement.
44. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as
45. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the New York State
Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment,
including, but not limited to, terminating his employment because of his age.
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to8 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 9 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary
and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income,
conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe
mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation,
embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain
and suffering for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
48. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as
49. Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb knowingly or recklessly aided and
abetted the unlawful employment practice and discrimination against Plaintiff in violation of the
NYSHRL.
50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s
unlawful and discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and
continues to suffer, monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of
past and future income, compensation and benefits, for which he is entitled to an award of
monetary damages.
51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s
unlawful and discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to9 New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 10 of 14
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018
continues to suffer, severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to,
depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-
confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which he is entitled to an award of monetary
52. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as
53. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the New York City
Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment,
including, but not limited to, terminating his employment because of his age.
54. As a direct and proximate result Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory conduct
in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or
economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, compensation
conduct in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe
mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation,
embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain
and suffering for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
wanton and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights under the NYCHRL, for which
57. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as
58. Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb knowingly or recklessly aided and
abetted the unlawful employment practices and discrimination against Plaintiff in violation of the
NYCHRL.
59. As a direct and proximate result Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s
unlawful and discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and
continues to suffer, monetary and/or economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of
past and future income, compensation and benefits, for which he is entitled to an award of
monetary damages.
60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s
unlawful and discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYCHRL, Plaintiff has suffered, and
continues to suffer, severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to,
depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-
confidence, and emotional pain and suffering for which he is entitled to an award of monetary
61. Defendants Lopez, McVay and Schwalb’s unlawful and discriminatory actions
constitute malicious, willful, wanton and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights
under the NYCHRL, for which Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
62. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation as
63. Plaintiff had business relations with non-party Cumulus Media, Inc. in the form of
66. Defendants’ actions caused Cumulus to breach its Employment Agreement with
Plaintiff.
complained of herein violate the laws of the State of New York and the City of New York;
interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all non-monetary and/or compensatory damages, including,
but not limited to, compensation for his severe mental anguish and emotional distress,
humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, self-confidence and personal
dignity, and emotional pain and suffering and any other physical and mental injuries;
compensate Plaintiff for harm to his professional and personal reputations and loss of career
fulfillment;
G. An award of costs that Plaintiff has incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiff’s
H. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.
WIGDOR LLP
By: _____________________________
Douglas H. Wigdor
Kenneth D. Walsh
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
kwalsh@wigdorlaw.com